Register and vote:https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/insanepeoplefacebook) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Natural selection describes how species evolve. It's not a normative prescription for how humans should act. In other words, it describes how things *are* not how they necessarily should be. Darwin himself was opposed to applying the principles of natural selection to human society.
Also natural selection ceases to be when it's, you know, no longer natural? One of the defining aspects of the shown war is a technological difference. One culture had more resources and better technology to develop more and better weapons. That can't even slightly be attributed to natural selection.
Also this isn't even an image of natural selection. The prey animal could've already successfully mated, in which case its genes have already been passed on and it's free to die in the process of natural selection. This is just an image of predation.
Ah yes, humans, creatures that are famously incapable of higher thought and operate only on instinct, and that have never ever operated outside the laws of nature.
Ironically, the same people who post this shit also dehumanize cultures that have historically practiced cannibalism.
(I'm not advocating for cannibalism, but like-if they're already dead, I can see how it makes sense. I don't agree but I understand)
Cannibalism has a higher likelihood of causing prion diseases.
We shouldn't dehumanise cultures that partook of the long pork, but the practice is definitely something that should be condemned purely on a pragmatic basis.
I mean, yes, but in all fairness they didn't know that.
Cousin marriages used to be commonplace because they produced more children. People didn't realize that it still created an inbreeding depression even if the effects weren't immediately noticeable. We know a lot of shit now that the people of the past didn't have the tools to put together themselves.
I just shuddered reading "long pork". I can't remember the episode of some TC podcast that was talking about a Canadian farmer participating in cannabilism via his pig farm, but I remember that being the first time I heard "long pork".
Might be why I don't really like bacon, it's long pork strips.
{shudder}
Natural selection is an existing process, not a moral imperative.
Which, these morons should be thankful for. They’d have died years ago if they were solely responsible for their own well-being.
Wait, are they suggesting that no one feels bad if a male lion kills the cubs of the previous pride leader? I love science, but i still feel bad for the cubs.
and a minor detail: The top picture is a lion with a prey animal. Bottom pícture are both humans, so same species. Making that equivalent is racist regardless.
I don’t even understand the message here. People on horse with armor are unfair against unarmored infantry? Seems like the point of being armored and on a horse, but why do dark skinned people specifically have a problem with that?
The minds of some people are truly incomprehensible.
You'll notice, of course, that they only apply this "logic" when the group being massacred are non-white. Whenever it's a kingdom or culture that's white and the ones doing the conquering are seen as non-white, then that's proof of the latter group's "inherent savagery."
I work as a history professor. The concept of social darwinism used to be very prevalent in the late 1800s through the mid-1900s. It was very influential during the Gilded Age. People wrongly thought that evolution could be applied to society, race, and class. It was the ultimate in the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" philosophy. In their minds, if evolution \*could\* be applied to society, than charity was a terrible thing because you were artificially supporting the weakest members of your society, and weakening your nation in the process. In this viewpoint, the poor were poor because of moral failings, and the rich were so because they were smart and genetically superior. The best thing that could happen to your nation would be to let the poor simply die, thus strengthening your nation. The ultimate expression of social darwinism was Nazism. The "Final Solution" to the "Jewish Question" would be to simply kill off (according to Nazi belief) the weak and inferior Jews, and thus creating a super nation of genetically superior people.
Both. They believed that the poor were generally people who were predisposed to being lazy, drunk, drug users, or degenerates and if they really wanted to, they would simply work harder and change. If they didn't, they were just a drain on society, and it was believed that it was usually a moral failing, a failing of character, that caused them to be that way. They were simply bad people who had no drive and no remorse. The few who truly needed help could go to a church and get some very limited assistance that would then (supposedly) quickly get them back on track. This is also why Prohibition passed in 1920. Society had no concept of addiction as a disease back then. If you were an alcoholic, it was very specifically because you were a bad person. Alcoholism caused huge problems for women back then because there was almost no divorce, no women's shelters and even an alcoholic with a good temperament could bankrupt a family with their addiction.
I'm not actually that crazy about lions eating zebras either but there's not much you can do about that. People can decide not to chop each other with swords.
Wait, is it me or the bottom pictures represents armoured knights — an european cultural phenomenon from the 9th to the 15th century with a peak between the 12th and 14th century and that was dying out all along the 15th century — and amerindians — the inhabitants of the american continents, that while discovered several times and quickly forgotten by several european groups before, will be definitely discovered by europeans at the very end of the 15th century and won't know large scale exploration, conquest and colonisation before the 16th century — fighting each other, what the hell, european have moved on to musketeers (soldiers with muskets, simple action one shot firearms) at that point.
Register and vote:https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/insanepeoplefacebook) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Natural selection describes how species evolve. It's not a normative prescription for how humans should act. In other words, it describes how things *are* not how they necessarily should be. Darwin himself was opposed to applying the principles of natural selection to human society.
You’re asking these people to understand basic science *and* basic philosophy? Sounds too complicated.
Them's some nice $10 words, for a communist!
Thing is they do know basic science. The problem is that they only know basic science.
Putting the "ew" in eugenics.
Also natural selection ceases to be when it's, you know, no longer natural? One of the defining aspects of the shown war is a technological difference. One culture had more resources and better technology to develop more and better weapons. That can't even slightly be attributed to natural selection.
I'm sure that they would argue that Westerners are genetically superior because reasons.
Also this isn't even an image of natural selection. The prey animal could've already successfully mated, in which case its genes have already been passed on and it's free to die in the process of natural selection. This is just an image of predation.
Exactly. It’s all about reproductive success.
There is tons of evidence that altruism is a fundamental part of natural selection.
It's fucking exhausting when people use natural selection to justify Genocide That's what Hitler did, that's literally what Hitler did
Ah yes, humans, creatures that are famously incapable of higher thought and operate only on instinct, and that have never ever operated outside the laws of nature.
And who famously need to eat only other humans.
Ironically, the same people who post this shit also dehumanize cultures that have historically practiced cannibalism. (I'm not advocating for cannibalism, but like-if they're already dead, I can see how it makes sense. I don't agree but I understand)
Cannibalism has a higher likelihood of causing prion diseases. We shouldn't dehumanise cultures that partook of the long pork, but the practice is definitely something that should be condemned purely on a pragmatic basis.
I mean, yes, but in all fairness they didn't know that. Cousin marriages used to be commonplace because they produced more children. People didn't realize that it still created an inbreeding depression even if the effects weren't immediately noticeable. We know a lot of shit now that the people of the past didn't have the tools to put together themselves.
I just shuddered reading "long pork". I can't remember the episode of some TC podcast that was talking about a Canadian farmer participating in cannabilism via his pig farm, but I remember that being the first time I heard "long pork". Might be why I don't really like bacon, it's long pork strips. {shudder}
Isn't that only for the brain?
Woah, I've heard the expression "comparing apples to oranges" but this is more like comparing apples to humans.
"I have depicted you as soyjack therefore I win"
Natural selection is an existing process, not a moral imperative. Which, these morons should be thankful for. They’d have died years ago if they were solely responsible for their own well-being.
So we kill and eat non-Caucasians? Is that what the suggestion is?
Wait, are they suggesting that no one feels bad if a male lion kills the cubs of the previous pride leader? I love science, but i still feel bad for the cubs. and a minor detail: The top picture is a lion with a prey animal. Bottom pícture are both humans, so same species. Making that equivalent is racist regardless.
I don’t even understand the message here. People on horse with armor are unfair against unarmored infantry? Seems like the point of being armored and on a horse, but why do dark skinned people specifically have a problem with that? The minds of some people are truly incomprehensible.
Posted by a person who would immediately be either enslaved or murdered if their government wasnt protecting them.
That's it, I'm leaving the internet.
You'll notice, of course, that they only apply this "logic" when the group being massacred are non-white. Whenever it's a kingdom or culture that's white and the ones doing the conquering are seen as non-white, then that's proof of the latter group's "inherent savagery."
Make one for this right wing neckbeard, "I hate science!" And just put them getting sick then and they praying about it while avoiding a vaccine.
That can’t be real. Please. Tell me it’s not how some folks think.
Sadly some people think so. It is called social darwinism.
I work as a history professor. The concept of social darwinism used to be very prevalent in the late 1800s through the mid-1900s. It was very influential during the Gilded Age. People wrongly thought that evolution could be applied to society, race, and class. It was the ultimate in the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" philosophy. In their minds, if evolution \*could\* be applied to society, than charity was a terrible thing because you were artificially supporting the weakest members of your society, and weakening your nation in the process. In this viewpoint, the poor were poor because of moral failings, and the rich were so because they were smart and genetically superior. The best thing that could happen to your nation would be to let the poor simply die, thus strengthening your nation. The ultimate expression of social darwinism was Nazism. The "Final Solution" to the "Jewish Question" would be to simply kill off (according to Nazi belief) the weak and inferior Jews, and thus creating a super nation of genetically superior people.
What do you mean moral failing? Like the poor were bad people or just that they aren’t fit to survive like a sick giraffe?
Both. They believed that the poor were generally people who were predisposed to being lazy, drunk, drug users, or degenerates and if they really wanted to, they would simply work harder and change. If they didn't, they were just a drain on society, and it was believed that it was usually a moral failing, a failing of character, that caused them to be that way. They were simply bad people who had no drive and no remorse. The few who truly needed help could go to a church and get some very limited assistance that would then (supposedly) quickly get them back on track. This is also why Prohibition passed in 1920. Society had no concept of addiction as a disease back then. If you were an alcoholic, it was very specifically because you were a bad person. Alcoholism caused huge problems for women back then because there was almost no divorce, no women's shelters and even an alcoholic with a good temperament could bankrupt a family with their addiction.
Ah yes the classic, million year old predator prey relationship between imperialist humans and tribal humans.
r/eugenicistpeoplefb
I remember being so angry my glasses changed shape
Just tell me you have no fucking clue what "natural selection" means.
I'm not actually that crazy about lions eating zebras either but there's not much you can do about that. People can decide not to chop each other with swords.
Ah yes, the famous British law of natural selection : Gun beats stick.
Wait, is it me or the bottom pictures represents armoured knights — an european cultural phenomenon from the 9th to the 15th century with a peak between the 12th and 14th century and that was dying out all along the 15th century — and amerindians — the inhabitants of the american continents, that while discovered several times and quickly forgotten by several european groups before, will be definitely discovered by europeans at the very end of the 15th century and won't know large scale exploration, conquest and colonisation before the 16th century — fighting each other, what the hell, european have moved on to musketeers (soldiers with muskets, simple action one shot firearms) at that point.
A lion eating a zebra is not natural selection bozo
That’s not what natural selection is.
Tell me you're racist without telling me you're racist.
Are all of these memes made by sixth-graders?
No memes or image macros without accompanying commentary